Agerbrink v. Model Service LLC
- James Oetken
- 1:14-cv-07841
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Agerbrink v. Model Service, Judge Oetken required public filing of any Fair Labor Standards Act settlement for approval within 90 days.
The parties to Eva Agerbrink’s Fair Labor Standards Act case, including the plaintiff and the defendants, were required to follow the public-filing and approval procedures for any settlement.
What happened
In Eva Agerbrink v. Model Service LLC et al., the parties told the court that they had reached a settlement in a Fair Labor Standards Act case.
The court said the parties could not end the case with prejudice based on that settlement unless the court or the Department of Labor approved it. Any request for approval and the settlement agreement had to be filed publicly within 90 days.
Judge J. Paul Oetken also required the request to address whether the settlement was fair and reasonable, including the possible recovery, litigation burdens and risks, bargaining process, possible fraud or collusion, any genuine dispute over hours or compensation, and the requested attorney fees. All other deadlines, conferences, and the trial date were postponed indefinitely.
The detailed version
- Agerbrink v. Model Service LLC · No. 1:14-cv-07841
- James Oetken
- Dec. 2, 2019
Background
The court was notified that the parties had reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act case. The order does not approve the settlement or state its financial terms.
Settlement-approval requirements
The court advised that the parties could not dismiss the action with prejudice based on the settlement unless the settlement was approved by either the court or the Department of Labor. Any letter motion seeking approval, together with the settlement agreement, had to be filed on the public docket within 90 days of the order.
The letter motion had to explain why the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable. At a minimum, it had to discuss:
- the plaintiff’s possible range of recovery; - how the settlement would allow the parties to avoid expected burdens and expenses in proving their claims and defenses; - the seriousness of the litigation risks; - whether experienced counsel negotiated the agreement at arm’s length; and - the possibility of fraud or collusion.
The letter also had to address whether a genuine dispute existed about the number of hours worked or the compensation owed, and how much of the proposed settlement the plaintiff’s attorney would seek as fees. The court stated that, absent special circumstances, it would not approve a settlement filed under seal or in redacted form.
Disposition
Judge J. Paul Oetken adjourned all other filing deadlines, conference dates, and the trial date indefinitely. The order did not grant or deny settlement approval and did not otherwise resolve the underlying Fair Labor Standards Act claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.